Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Discussions (998) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)

Re: the struggle continues

It's not that the problem is acknowledging or even
requesting permission to use another individual's
It's the cash pert of the equation and the fact that
some fat cat (or their gofer) is purring 'defence of
the artists' interests' when of course what they mean
is defence of their slice of the action.
The argument that 20 years ago home taping or nowadays
peer to peer was and is 'killing music' was and is
bullshit and hypocrisy.
What it did do was to nibble at the outrageous profits
of the corporations.
I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
piece is a sound one - if some money making machine
can't understand the difference between art and
commerce then that just illustrates beautifully the
vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart of

--- "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e
[Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> You guys are making the same logical dollars/sense
> arguments that allowing
> corporations to fine individuals service charges
> while not allowing individuals
> to charge the corporations for wasting their time.
> It is not such a simple little world. Yet
> republicans and children want it to
> be. Corporations use A LOT of public resources -
> yet have very little
> expectation of delivering public good (other than
> supposed economic engine -
> jobs) The Getty uses A LOT of public resources - to
> have little bit syphoned
> off for fair use purposes is a gray area I would
> like to see approved,
> applauded, and no longer an argument for repression.
> And BTW - an artist created the image...a
> businessperson gave control to the
> Getty. Two seperate activities.
> --
> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
> Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]


Re: Re: hektor

Hi Nathaniel
All I was really doing was making a point about the
stripping of Benjamin's political context which seems
to be a feature of so much academic work about him.
He then appears as a sort of free floating intellect
whose rather gnomic style lends itself to
appropriation in a vast number of usually fairly
arcane directions.( Gramsci's treatment is another
example of this in my view rather dishonest process)
Of course acknowledging his politics doesn't make him
simple or straightforward but it does make him make a
lot more sense.
Then the 'Theses..' become a profoundly strange and
wonderful but nontheless comprehensible account of the
moment of social revolution filtered through the
imagery of Jewish messianism and written by someone
who despite his long term fellow travelling with the
communist party cannot honestly stomach Stalinism.
Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to reply to the
original post.
--- nathaniel stern <nes212@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Max, Michael, et al.
> Sorry not to get back to you sooner on this "hektor"
> thread (it


Re: Re: word source (pinker, chomsky, etc...)

Hi Lewis
I thought a little about a similar problem a while
back -
I kind of had in mind the idea of a 'Shakespeare
Machine' which would spew out endless tracts of
wierdly almost shakespeare like stuff. A bit like the
infinite number of monkeys with typewriters.
It struck me that it might be quite fruitful to adopt
a statistical approach, that is to analyze a block of
text in a particular language formally simply ( or
perhaps not so simply) in terms of the frequency of
occurence of symbols and of prohibited and permitted
symbol combinations .I believe this is how textual
analysis by computer is conducted for literary
( the basic symbol for our purposes being either the
letter or the word - the question of the actual
pronounciation of words in real life is of a massively
higher degree of complexity)
I think that this approach would then be much more
amenable to coding ( of course this wouldn't actually
produce english or italian or whatever if you were
working at the level of the letter, but something
hopefully disturbingly like it and the bigger your
original corpus and the more succint your statistical
distillation the nearer in kind to the original any
If you were analyzing with the word as the basic unit
you'd get nonsense but interesting and evocative
I never did anything about it because life's too short
in my view and it would require serious amounts of
time and commitment to do properly.
It would be interesting to see someone give it a go.
--- Lewis LaCook <llacook@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> um, yes...
> i agree, actually===of course, i could hide behind
> the idea that this is nothing like a finished
> work===whatever a finished work is===but i simply
> must confess that i could not even BEGIN to code in
> a way that would make the computer recognize
> grammatical rules, much less phonetic
> custom===though someday i'd love to do it===
> i definitely agree w/ your comment on "more than the
> demo features"===at times i feel stuck in that mode,
> and i'm still relatively new to much of this (i've
> only been writing code for little over a year, been
> working in flash and actionscript less...)...
> hmmm...i'll have to reply to this when i'm in a more
> serious mode...this is thought-provoking!
> bliss
> l
> + your mama don't dance and your daddy don't rock &
> roll
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free


Re: Net Art News submission

I'm delighted you like the piece.

&..I'm not playing faux dumb but you lose me
completely about here....
< I'm calling it "the vengeful return of
occasionalism" on ArtforumTalkBack,
does that relate to nemesesia and fluxus space? For
me it does.>

maintain the Stakhanovite post rate!-
obscure- sometimes
vexing- occasionally
boring- never


--- Nmherman@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/4/2002 2:06:44 PM Central
> Daylight Time,
> szpako@yahoo.com writes:
> > Having said that- what do you think of the piece?
> > best
> > michael
> Well, if we suppose there were six rules of g2k
> documentary video, I think
> this one would conform to three and the other three
> would be non-applicable.
> I loved it, but I love "Come and See" and Fathers
> and Sons too. I guess I'm
> not qualified to Judge the piece but I enjoyed it
> very much. Archived direct
> stories and interviews like that would be budgeted
> fully if I ever pull a Ted
> Turner. Reinventing Studs Terkel.
> There's also the new Bill Moyers' show NOW and
> Frontline to think of re
> documentary, not to mention the artistic questions
> around documentary versus
> imaginative art in general, in all artistic media.
> I'm calling it "the vengeful return of
> occasionalism" on ArtforumTalkBack,
> does that relate to nemesesia and fluxus space? For
> me it does.
> Max
> ++

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free


Re: word source

your posts get more and more baroque.
I think you should consider a collected
--- Nmherman@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/5/2002 4:28:15 PM Central
> Daylight Time,
> office@plasmastudii.org writes:
> > They have to integrate with past information (in
> > this case, observations about linguistics),
> effecting the world
> > outside of the mechanical box in the present, to
> not end up the
> > un-bio-degradable garbage of the future.
> On this sin typo we both agree Judson my good
> Fanshawe rebelliore.
> Rich Herman
> genius2000.net
> ++

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free